Who's Crying For Me, Argentina?

So, the FAA has kind of been partially shut down for a couple of weeks now. I guess there's some sort of political to-do over unions or something. And while the FAA is still up and running, it's not entirely functional. See, they can't take in taxes (to the tune of about $30 million per day) and so the federal government is losing out on that money. Also, about "...4,000 FAA workers furloughed without pay and another 70,000 construction workers without work", according to the Huffington Post. And the other day, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood scolded Congress for leaving town before they had reauthorized the FAA's funding.

And he's acting like he's flipping out (I have no idea if he actually gives a fat rat's ass or not) because there are upwards of 74,000 people who could lose their jobs. Here's my question: Let's say that my cushy ass job (I'm not saying the FAA jobs are cushy ass. I have no idea. I'm saying that MY job is cushy ass.) was endangered at some point. (And knowing me, it's going to be. It's just a given. I mean, I'm good at what I do. It's just a matter of how long I can hold my tongue with some things. And that's when the fireworks start.) Is there anyone who is going to come to my defense and speak up for me and my job to be saved? I don't think there is!

Does this Ray LaHood guy not understand how many jobs have been lost in the private sector all over this country over the past, say....five years? Private sector jobs are NOT sacred. Why on earth, if a government department is going to shut down or need to be scaled back, that everyone acts like there is some great atrocity that is being committed and everything that can possibly be done to save those people's jobs should be done? How in the hell are we supposed to shrink our government (and our government spending) without some of those folks losing their jobs?! We can't!

I don't know when it started that if you managed to land yourself a government job that you were set for life. That mindset has GOT to change! Do I care if more people will be unemployed? Yes, of course I do. But do I think that having a government job means that it should last forever? I don't think that I do. Again, how are we going to shrink the government (and thus, what the government spends) if no government program OR worker is untouchable?! We're not! There you have it. Doomed, I tell you. And screwed. Screwed and doomed. We're scroomed.

moreless

It Gets Raised All The Time

OK, let's talk about the debt ceiling. Everyone else seems to be. But they seem to be talking about it in terms of gloom and doom. Shocking, I know. And that's really not quite the case. I mean, it's doom-y and it's gloom-y, but that's nothing that's all that new.

The debt ceiling is supposed to be just what it says that it is. It's like a cap on how much debt the country can be in. See, the United States doesn't take in enough money to pay all of its bills. Yeah, that's a problem. So, the US has to borrow a boatload of money all of the time in order to pay for everything. And by "everything" I mean things like Social Security, the military, stuff like that. Stuff that (mostly) needs to be paid for. And if we don't raise the debt ceiling, then come August 3rd, things won't get paid. The country won't be able to borrow the money that it needs to pay its bills. And while that's bad, you would think that this would be a good opportunity to open up some discussion on the matter of what to do about all of that debt that we have. You would think.

I'm not trying to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue. President Barry wants the debt ceiling raised. According to USA Today, they want to "...to cut spending and raise taxes while raising the debt limit by the Aug. 2 deadline". OK. President Barry doesn't want to raise taxes. He says that "...the White House could reach $1.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years without new revenues". OK. Now, I have no idea if that $1.7 trillion is accurate. I have no idea if it's even close to being true. But there are some things that I do know.

I know that all of this posturing over whether or not one side or the other is going to agree to raise the debt ceiling is just for show. It will get raised. How do I know this? Mainly, I speculate a lot. But I do so based on things that I see. See, people that are in Congress want to get re-elected. If this thing doesn't get raised and a bunch of people don't get paid and it becomes the Republicans "fault", that's not going to go over well come election time. It's also not going to go over well if taxes get raised when our tax dollars are being pissed away right and left with wasteful spending. That won't help that whole re-election cycle that they all drool over.

But before I get to the real reason, I'd just like to suggest that perhaps they consider changing the name of this thing. In what way is the "debt ceiling" or the "debt limit" either a ceiling OR a limit when you can just keep changing it? It's like when you go to buy a car and there is a suggested retail price. That thing can move all over the place. (And hopefully if you're buying a car, you're haggling to get the price reduced and not raised.) It's not a firm price. And this magical number that we have for what our debt can be? That's not a firm number. And it never has been.

And that brings me to the main reason why the debt ceiling will be raised without the government shutting down. They do it ALL THE TIME. According to CNN Money, "Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001." Seventy four times?! SEVENTY FOUR?! Since 1962?! That's 49 years. That averages out to once every 8.1 months! Are you freaking kidding me?! That's not even a full term pregnancy! 8.1 months! Oh, for cryin' out loud. Just raise the damn thing and get over it. What the what?! This happens ALL THE TIME! Stop it with the phony posturing all ready! Geez. We're doomed. Doomed!

moreless

A Fairly Reasonable Pay Freeze

Yesterday, President Barry's administration announced that they're going to not give any civilian federal employees (military personnel are excluded) a raise for the next two years. It is, essentially, a pay freeze. And it is, essentially, about friggin' time.

I'm not sure why it took so long for this to happen. It's not like we couldn't all see that it was necessary. According to the Huffington Post they're looking at a "...two-year pay freeze that would save the country $28 billion in the next five years and $60 billion over the coming decade." I like the sound of that. You know who doesn't like the sound of that? That's right. Civilian federal employees. To which I reply: Sorry. (Not really, but you know what I mean. Trust me, I had a much more colorful phrase that I was intending to use there. But then I remembered that I have friends who work for the federal government and I didn't see any need to anger them further.)

Am I being heartless, as per usual? I don't think I am. I think that I'm being realistic as per usual. (Realistic is never very popular.) Let's take a look at some simply astounding statistics (they're also known as facts) from the lovely folks over there at USA Today. Keep in mind that a lot of this data covers the time frame between 2005 and today. So, when the entire housing market crashed and when everything in the financial world went completely into the crapper, all of this stuff was going on. Also keep in mind that the current national unemployment rate is hovering around 9%. NINE percent. And as long as we're keeping things in mind, please also remember that earlier this year, unemployment was around 11%. ELEVEN. Now, let's see how things are going in the fantasy land that is working for the federal government, shall we?

Where to begin? How about here: "Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June." Um, wait. What now? So, in the last FIVE years, the Defense Department went from having NINE civilians in the $170,000 or more range to NINE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR?!?! With SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY of those folks making that wage under President Barry's watch? He's only been President for two years!!

What else? How about this: "The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate." Oh, sure. That makes perfect sense. Inflation is 9%, so absolutely the average salary of a federal worker should increase by 25%. Are you kidding me?! Is there anyone who can explain that rationale to me? Anyone? Anyone? OK, then. That's what I thought. Moving on...

"Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005." And "Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers." OK, then. Well. I think I've read enough.

It is about time that something was done to curb the ridiculous amount of debt that this country has incurred. And I realize that if you're a federal civilian employee, you are none to happy about this. Tell you what, buttercup. If you'd like, we could have the federal government deal with their bloated workforce the same way that the private industry has been dealing with their problems for...oh, forever. That's right. We could lay a bunch of y'all off. Would that make you feel better? Because that's what the private sector does. They lay people off. They don't freeze their pay. No, they cut their pay entirely by firing them. So if you're out there whining about this, knock it off. You're going to be hard pressed to find any sympathy in the private sector and you're sure as hell not going to find an iota of sympathy from me. My only two questions are "What took so long?" and "What's next?"

moreless

Holy Crap

My brain melted after viewing this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

moreless

Now We Know What's In The Bill. Or Do We?

Here are four words I never thought I'd think, much less type: Nancy Pelosi was right.

On March 9, 2010, Speaker Pelosi (who I'm pretty sure is missing a human soul and warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) gave a little speech to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties and during said speech, she actually said what I thought might have been the most ridiculous thing to ever come out of her mouth. She said, in reference to the then-pending health care bill, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Um, what now?

That's what she said. I swear. The text of the entire speech is over at her website. That particular little gem is about six paragraphs up from the bottom. But it turns out, she was right. How did I determine that? I came to that conclusion after reading an article by the extremely talented reporter William La Jeunesse of Fox News. The article outlined a provision of the bill, which is now law, called the Class Act, "...otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act" which "...is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program."

Now, why we didn't hear about this beforehand is beyond me. No, wait. No, it's not. We didn't hear about it because people out there in the media are simply not doing their jobs. It's not like this bill wasn't available for review beforehand. (Right? It was available, right?) Granted, the thing clocked in at over 2,000 pages long. Am I supposed to read all of those 2,000 pages? Technically, I think that I should want to. And don't get me wrong, I DO want to want to. I DON'T want to, though. But again, technically, I don't think that I should have to. (Don't get me started on how I don't think that ANYTHING should be 2,000 pages long, unless it's a document telling me how great I am, and even then that would be pushing it. My greatness can easily be summed up in a thousand pages or so.) It's not my JOB to read the damn thing. That's the job of the media. Their job is to report. They can't report unless they know what they're reporting on. The only way to know that is to do their damn job and read all 2,000 freaking pages. But no one did, otherwise we would have heard about this before now.

Ready for this? I hope you're either sitting down or sharpening your pitchfork tines. "...The program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care." Wait. What now? How much? A month?!

Now, call me silly, but can't you get long term care from the insurance that you're already supposed to be mandated to be purchasing thanks to the passage of the health care bill? I'm thinking that something along those lines would make the most sense. Ohh. That's why they didn't do it that way. It would have made sense. Carry on.

Now, this is a policy where you are automatically opted into unless you opt out. That is the complete opposite of what I thought that things were supposed to be being done. I thought it was supposed to be that you were automatically opted out of something unless you wanted to opt in. Oh, right. That's for things that the federal government isn't trying to siphon money from you for. Got it.

According to William's article, here are some of the more pressing details that you need to know about:

The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240. Wait. The CBO and the Medicare/Medicaid folks have figures that differ in cost of around a hundred bucks? Shocking, I know. Who am I going to believe? I'm going to go with the Medicare/Medicaid folks, as they are already ridiculously underpaid, thus the CBO's low estimate would seem to be wrong, all things considered. I'm also going to with with how that seems like an awful lot of money to be deducted monthly from folks. (And just remember, those figures are an "average". That means that some people will pay more than that and some people will pay less than that. My guess is that some people will pay much, much less.)

After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care. Only a five year vesting period? And then you're good? How do they figure that? By my calculations (and I'll go with the higher figure just to give them the benefit of the doubt), if you're paying in $240 a month, after five years, you'll have contributed $14,400. At benefits of $75 a day that you can tap if you need to after those five years, you'll have yourself a whopping 192 days of care. That's not a full year. That's barely over six months. Now, I don't know what your definition of "long term care" is, but mine is definitely more than six months. Six months isn't what I'd call "long term". Six months is "just gettin' started".

Here's the other frightening part of this: The money that is put into this fund (generously and likely erroneously estimated to be $109 billion in collected premiums by 2019 after being implemented as early as 2012) will not be in a "lockbox" sort of situation. No, it's going to be more of a general fund sort of situation. You know how Social Security money is supposed to be just for Social Security? You know how the Social Security funds have been tapped by everything else AND how it will give out more than it takes in next year? You know how that works? Sure you do. Now, do you expect that this thing will work any differently? Of course you don't. Thus, it's going to end up being what? A mitigated disaster, that is correct.

Of course "The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion." Sounds great. Good thing that this was passed into law so that we could find out that this was in it!

Since I enjoy math and numbers, let's look at a few more, shall we? If this thing starts in 2012, $109 billion in premiums by 2019 equals out to be $15.57 billion a year. If folks are paying $240 a month, that's 5,228,125 people needed to sustain that figure. If folks are paying $146 a year, that's 8,594,178 people needed to sustain that figure. That's a difference of 3,366,053 people. Um, that's kind of a lot. How do they figure this is going to work? AT ALL! And let's not forget, those are the figures to make it all work out without money being drawn out of the fund. Those are just the numbers for money being theoretically deposited into the fund.

But let's say you participate in this charade starting from the time you're 20. And let's say that you're paying the low, low rate of $146 a month. Fast forward forty five years. You're now sixty five and you're going to retire. You'll have amassed for yourself, after forty five years of paying premiums and at the flex-rate of $75 per day allotted to you for long term care, a whopping three years of long term care. Three. Forty five years, $146 a month for a total of $78,840. That gets you three years of in-home long term care. That doesn't seem like a lot to me. Wouldn't you be better off taking that $146 and investing it somewhere or even setting up a 401k type of dealio so that you can take care of your own expenses? Wouldn't that $146 amount to a hell of a lot more than the $78,840 after 45 years? I'm kind of thinking that it would.

This is ridiculous. And it's now law. Congratulations, Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for saddling the country with another obligation that it cannot afford. What in the hell happened to people taking care of themselves when they retire anyway? (Has she not noticed the high unemployment rate which is still besieging the country? Perhaps she has overlooked the still sagging economy? The perpetually high foreclosure rate? And she's thinking that folks in "times like these" are going to be OK with forking over another $200 a month? Not to be unjustifiably disrespectful to the soulless snake, but she's high.)

I don't say things like this very often, but please read William's article and pass it along to your friends. I guarantee that the majority of them, if not all of them, have never heard a single word about this. I guarantee that the majority of them have no idea that they've already been opted into a plan that is going to cost them a minimum of $146 a month unless they opt out. And again, the reason that people don't know this is because people in the media are not doing their job. Well, except for William. William rocks at his job. But everyone else just sucks. I can't wait to find out what else is in the bill now that it's passed into law. How exciting!

moreless